Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JOHN C. CRUDEN
Assistant Attorney General
Environment & Natural Resources Division
United States Department of Justice
DAVID B. GLAZER (D.C. 400966)
Natural Resources Section
Environment & Natural Resources Division
United States Department of Justice
301 Howard Street, Suite 1050
San Francisco, California 94105
TEL: (415) 7446491
FAX: (415) 744-6476
e-mail: david.glazer@usdoj.gov
12
ANDREW W. TWIETMEYER
The Law Office of Andrew W. Twietmeyer
10780 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 401
Los Angeles, CA 90025
TEL: (310) 909-7138
FAX: (323) 988-7171
e-mail: awt@twietmeyerlaw.com
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
14
15
16
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
17
No. 2:15-cv-02329-GEB-KJN
18
Plaintiff,
v.
Date:
19
January 19, 2016
20
KEVIN K. WASHBURN, et al.,
21
Defendants.
Courtroom No. 10
22
Hon. Garland E. Burrell, Jr.
23
24
25
Plaintiff, the Agua Caliente Tribe of Cupeo Indians and Federal Defendant Kevin K. Washburn
submit this Joint Status Report in accordance with the Courts Order of November 10, 2015, ECF No. 3.
Plaintiff does not presently anticipate the need to join any additional parties. Plaintiff has sued
Defendant in his official capacity, but is informed that Defendant will be leaving his position with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs later this month. Plaintiff will identify Defendants replacement as DOE
10
11
12
13
In the event that Defendant provides Plaintiff with a response to Plaintiffs December 2014
14
request to correct the List of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes prior to filing his Motion to Dismiss,
15
Plaintiff may need to amend the Complaint. The need to amend will depend on the nature of Defen-
16
dants response. Likewise, Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the Complaint in the event that
17
Defendant ignores Plaintiffs letter and simply publishes the 2016 List without making the requested
18
correction and proceeds to replace the currently listed tribe known as the Pala Band of Luiseno Mission
19
Indians of the Pala Reservation, California (the Pala Luiseno) with the unlisted entity known as the
20
21
22
Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction under the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. 1331, and
23
mandamus, 28 U.S.C. 1361. Plaintiff asserts venue in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(e).
24
25
Federal Defendant disputes the availability of mandamus jurisdiction in this case because Federal
Defendant owes Plaintiff no non-discretionary duty. As currently pled, Plaintiffs claims do not come
within scope of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701706, and the United States
waiver of sovereign immunity, because Plaintiff has, among other things, failed to exhaust its admini-
strative remedies; there is thus no Article III jurisdiction in this Court over those claims.
Plaintiff disagrees. In passing the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, Congress
expressly charged Defendant with the responsibility of keeping a list of federally recognized Indian
tribes that is accurate and which reflect[s] all of the federally recognized Indian tribes in the United
States. PL 103-454 103(6)-(8). Congresss requirement that the List be both accurate and that it
10
reflect all of the federally recognized Indian tribes in the United States demonstrates that Defendant
11
does not have discretion as to which tribes are included on the List. On the contrary, Defendant has a
12
non-discretionary duty to list all federally-recognized tribes. Defendant thus has a non-discretionary
13
duty to refrain from replacing the name of an historic federally-recognized tribe (the Pala Luiseno)
14
which has had a government-to-government relationship with the United States for over a century-and-
15
a-half with the name of an tribal association (the PBMI) which was formed in only 1961.
16
17
century-and-a-half ago, and Congress has never terminated that relationship, a necessarily implied
18
19
discretionary duty to provide a reasoned response when Plaintiff (a tribe that is unlisted despite the fact
20
that Congress has recognized Plaintiff by treaty and by setting aside land for Plaintiffs benefit) requests
21
that the List be corrected to include Plaintiffs absent name and that the List not be changed to replace
22
the name of a federally recognized tribe (the Pala Luiseno) with the name of a tribal entity formed in
23
1961 (the PBMI). Plaintiffs claims for relief seek such a reasoned response. Defendant himself
24
apparently agrees that such a response is required as Defendants agents have been assuring Plaintiff
25
1
2
prior precedents in which the United States has corrected the List to include other federally recognized
but unlisted tribes. Defendants failure to respond thus falls squarely within the scope of the APA. See
Federal Defendant anticipates filing a motion to dismiss the complaint on or before January 15,
8
9
10
11
12
All documents and Communications in the Bureaus possession, custody, control relating
13
to the Bureaus correction of the list with respect to (a) the Ione Band List Correction (1994); (b) the
14
Lower Laker Rancheria List Corrected (2000); and (c) the Tejon Tribe (2012);
15
16
2)
Un-redacted copies of
(a)
a 7-page Letter dated June 21, 1996, addressed to Robert Smith, Spokesman Pala
17
Band of Mission Indians from Sacramento Area Director Ronald M. Jaeger (hereinafter the June 21,
18
1996 Letter);
19
20
21
(b)
the January 17, 1995 Letter referred to at the top of the June 21, 1996 Letter and the
22
Pala Band of Mission Indians, from Pacific Regional Director Amy Dutschke (hereinafter the
23
24
(d)
25
the Solicitors Opinion referred to at the bottom of page two of the December 8,
1999 Letter.
2
3
4)
Cupeo;
4
5
All communications between the BIA and Robert Smith, relating to the Agua Caliente
5)
All communications between the BIA and Pala Band of Mission Indians relating to the
6)
Pala Reservation;
7)
All internal communications and memoranda of BIA regarding the Agua Caliente Cupeo;
8)
All communications between the BIA and any person relating to the Agua Caliente
9
10
11
12
All communications between the BIA and the Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the
and
Cupeo.
Federal Defendant does not anticipate seeking any discovery and, because this case is reviewable
13
under the APA, if at all, and on the administrative record, rather than on information generated in the
14
reviewing court, Federal Defendant would object to any discovery propounded by Plaintiff. See also
15
16
17
Federal Defendant takes the position that this case is exempted from the initial disclosure
18
requirements, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(i), 26(a)(2)(A), 26(a)(3)(A), and that the Parties are exempted
19
from the otherwise applicable requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Federal Defendant also does not
20
believe that any discovery is appropriate in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(i), 26(f)(1). Under
21
the APA, discovery on the merits of Plaintiffs challenge is generally not available. See Florida Power
22
& Light v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 74344 (1985); Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 14143 (1973) (per
23
curiam); Hall v. Norton, 266 F.3d 969, 97778 (9th Cir. 2001). The reviewing courts role is limited to
24
applying the appropriate APA standard of review under 5 U.S.C. 706 to the agencys decision, based
25
upon the administrative record compiled by the agency. Florida Power & Light, 470 U.S. 74344;
Plaintiff does not agree that the authorities Defendant cites above bar initial disclosures or
discovery in this case. The cases cited above all involved challenges to completed agency action under
5 U.S.C. 706(2). In such instances, the agency, having taken action may defeat the APA claim if the
agency compiles a record showing that Defendants conduct was in accordance with the law, not
In this case, by contrast, Plaintiff seeks to compel action unlawfully withheld and unreasonably
delayed under 5 U.S.C. 706(1). Under these circumstances to limit the Courts review to an admini-
10
strative record that Defendant compiles without any coercive requirement that Defendant include certain
11
documents in that record would permit Defendant to conceal any documents that would tend to show
12
that Defendant has been unduly influenced or acted unreasonably or unlawfully in withholding action.
13
Indeed, having taken no action, Defendant can persuasively take the position that there is no relevant
14
administrative record for the Court to consider. For this reason courts have held that extra-record review
15
is appropriate where, as here, the Plaintiff sues for a failure to take action. See, e.g., Fund for Animals v.
16
Williams, 391 F.Supp.2d 191, 197198 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing Esch v. Yeutter, 876 F.2d 976, 991 (D.C.
17
Cir. 1989)).
18
As set forth in section (f) above, Plaintiff does not anticipate the need for discovery in this case
19
provided that Defendants either disclose the documents listed in section (f), or include those documents
20
in the Administrative Record. Plaintiff respectfully submits that an Administrative Record that does not
21
include those documents would be inadequate. Any dispute as to whether disclosures or discovery are
22
permissible in this case can largely be mooted by an order that the Administrative Record include the
23
documents identified in section (f) above and Defendants faithful compliance with such an order.
24
25
Federal Defendant takes that position that even if Plaintiffs claims are properly characterized as
failure to act claims, such claims are encompassed by the review provisions of Section 706 of the
APA, including the requirement that judicial review of such claims be based on the whole [administra-
tive] record or those parts of it cited by a party. 5 U.S.C. 706. Section 706 of the APA provides that
(subject to pertinent exhaustion requirements) the reviewing court may compel agency action unlaw-
fully withheld or unreasonably delayed, 5 U.S.C. 706(1), and the APA defines agency action to
include an agencys failure to act, see 5 U.S.C. 551(13) (emphasis added). Moreover, because the
Secretarys decision is one informed by the Agencys own expertise, development of the administrative
record should reflect that expertise and should be left initially to the Agency. Therefore, Federal
10
Defendant believes that an order directing the Agency what to include in the administrative record
11
before it has taken action would be inappropriate. See, e.g., FTC v. Std. Oil Co., 449 U.S. 232, 24243
12
(1980) (court should not interfere in administrative process); J.L. v. Social Sec. Admin., 971 F.2d 260,
13
26566 (9th Cir. 1992) (documentation for court review should be developed through administrative
14
proceeding). In short, should this case proceed to the merits after the Secretary acts on Plaintiffs
15
request for relief (see Item n), below), review of Plaintiffs claims would be on the administrative record
16
17
18
witnesses and information required by Rule 26(a)(2), completion dates for discovery and law and
19
20
21
1
22
23
24
25
Fund for Animals v. Williams, 391 F. Supp. 2d 191, 19798 (D.D.C. 2005), cited by Plaintiff, is not to
the contrary. In that case, the district court allowed supplementation of the administrative record with
documents that were before the agency at the time it made its decision. See id. at 19899; see also
Lands Council v. Forester of Region One of the United States Forest Serv., 395 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th
Cir. 2005) (supplementation may in limited circumstances be appropriate if administrative record is
incomplete) (citing Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 14243 (1973)).
Agua Caliente Tribe v. Washburn, No. 2:15-cv-02329-GEB-KJN
Parties Joint Status Report
Federal Defendant takes the position that this case is reviewable on the administrative record, if
at all, and, therefore, that the expert witness disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(2) do not apply. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(i), 26(a)(2)(A). The merits of Plaintiffs claims would be addressed by
cross-motions for summary judgment based on the administrative record. However, as noted in Item e),
above, Federal Defendant anticipates moving to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint. Federal Defendant
suggests that it might be most efficient to defer scheduling further proceedings, as necessary, until the
Courts resolution of that motion or until expiration of the stay Federal Defendant suggests in Item n,
below, or amendment of Plaintiffs Complaint in response to the Secretarys decision on its request.
Without waiver of any right, Plaintiff does not presently anticipate the need for expert witnesses
10
in this case. If Defendant refuses to stipulate to the facts and the authenticity of relevant bureau and
11
historical records, then expert testimony could become necessary. Plaintiff agrees that scheduling of
12
further proceedings should be delayed until the Court resolves Defendants forthcoming motion.
13
14
Federal Defendant believes no trial would be necessary or appropriate in this case, as the case is
15
reviewable, if at all, under Section 706 of the APA. Plaintiff is not aware of any statute that makes a
16
trial inappropriate in APA cases. Plaintiff hopes and anticipates that the parties will stipulate to the
17
relevant facts and the authenticity of bureau records and other relevant documents. In that event,
18
Plaintiff agrees that the case can likely be resolved through motions for summary judgment. Otherwise,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
The Parties agree that, if this case is reviewable, it is reviewable pursuant to Section 706 of the
APA. Accordingly, Federal Defendant anticipates that resolution on the merits would proceed through
motions for summary judgment and that no pretrial proceedings would be necessary. Whether the case
is resolved on summary judgment or not, Plaintiff does not believe that the case will require modifica-
8
9
l) Whether the case is related to any other case on file in this district, including the bankruptcy
courts of this district
10
This case is not related to any cases currently on file in this district. However, it is related to
11
Aguayo v. Jewell, No. 13-cv-01435-BAS(KSC) (S.D. Cal.). In that case, individual descendants of
12
Margarita Britten (see Complaint 99101) sued the Department of the Interior to complain that, in
13
their view, they had been wrongfully disenrolled from the Pala Band of Mission Indians. The plaintiffs
14
in that case are currently pursuing an appeal of an adverse decision by the district court, reported at
15
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161616 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-56909 (9th Cir. Dec.
16
5, 2014). 2
17
18
19
The Federal Defendant will not stipulate to the presiding judge acting as settlement judge.
20
However, Federal Defendant would consider a settlement offer from the Plaintiff and whether a settle-
21
ment conference before another judge or magistrate or other neutral might assist in reaching a negotiated
22
resolution.
23
2
24
25
Plaintiff would be willing to dismiss Plaintiffs second claim for relief for prohibitory injunctive
relief if Defendant agrees to correct the List of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes so that it includes
Plaintiffs name, the Agua Caliente Tribe of Cupeo Indians of the Pala Reservation, California.
n) Other matters that may be conducive to the just and expeditious disposition of the case
Federal Defendant may be able to respond within the next two months to Plaintiffs request, set
forth in the First Claim for Relief of its Complaint, that Federal Defendant correct the List of Federally
Recognized Indian Tribes to include Plaintiffs name. If Plaintiff receives a response at that time,
Plaintiff may wish to amend its Complaint accordingly. Federal Defendant proposes that it may be
preferable therefore to stay litigation of Plaintiffs First Claim for Relief until that time. Accordingly,
10
Federal Defendant would respectfully suggest that the Court enter such a stay, which would run until
11
February 5, 2016. If the Department of the Interior does not issue the anticipated response by that date,
12
the stay would expire. If it does, then Plaintiff may move to amend its Complaint at that time.
13
Plaintiff disagrees that the case should be stayed. Plaintiff requested that Defendant correct the
14
List more than one year ago. Plaintiffs counsel was then informed in February 2015 that a responsive
15
letter was being drafted. Plaintiffs counsel was then informed on April 24 2015, by Director of the
16
Office of Federal Acknowledgment, Lee Fleming, that the responsive letter was being drafted by
17
solicitor Scott Keep and that, hopefully it would be delivered by May 8, 2015. Plaintiff sent a detailed
18
follow-up letter with voluminous exhibits on June 16, 2015, and re-iterated Plaintiffs request that the
19
List be corrected. Counsel for Plaintiff then spoke with Solicitor Keep on July 17, 2015. Mr. Keep
20
informed counsel that a response to Plaintiffs request had not been drafted and that it would certainly be
21
at least a couple of weeks. Defendant has delayed for more than a year. Every day of delay carries
22
serious detrimental consequences for Plaintiff and Plaintiffs members as they are deprived of the use
23
and benefit of lands set aside for their benefit at the express direction of Congress. The Court should not
24
afford Defendants the opportunity for further delay by staying this action.
25
1
2
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: January 5, 2016
3
4
JOHN C. CRUDEN
Assistant Attorney General
Environment & Natural Resources Division
/s/ David B. Glazer
DAVID B. GLAZER
Natural Resources Section
Environment & Natural Resources Division
United States Department of Justice
301 Howard Street, Suite 1050
San Francisco, California
Tel: (415) 744-6491
Fax: (415) 744-6476
E-mail: David.Glazer@usdoj.gov
5
6
7
8
9
OF COUNSEL
12
JAMES PORTER
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Interior
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Attorney for Plaintiff
21
22
23
24
25
10
1
2
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, David B. Glazer, hereby certify that, on January 5, 2016, I caused the foregoing to be served
upon counsel of record through the Courts electronic service.
4
5
6
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
7
8
9
/s/David B. Glazer
David B. Glazer
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11